Sphere

[Bada0Bing]

You must be registered for see images attach

Amazon.com
From yet another derivative science fiction novel by Michael Crichton comes this equally derivative and flaccid movie, in which three top Hollywood stars struggle to squeeze tension and excitement out of material that doesn't match their talents. You're supposed to find awe and mystery in Crichton's story about a team of scientists and scholars who discover a 300-year-old alien spacecraft deep on the ocean floor, but mostly you feel that this is all much ado about nothing. The exploration team consists of a psychologist (Dustin Hoffman), mathematician (Samuel L. Jackson), biochemist (Sharon Stone), and an astrophysicist (Liev Schreiber), and when they enter the alien ship they discover a mysterious sphere inside. What they don't know is that the sphere has the power to manipulate their thoughts and perceptions, and before long the scientists' undersea habitat is a veritable haunted house of frightening visions and creeping paranoia. Who can be trusted? What is the sphere's purpose, and why is it on the ocean floor? Sphere makes some attempt to answer these questions, but the film is a mess, and it leads to one of the most anticlimactic endings of any science fiction film ever made. There are moments of high intensity and psychological suspense, and the stellar cast works hard to boost the talky screenplay. But it's clear that this was a hurried production (Hoffman and director Barry Levinson made Wag the Dog during an extended production delay), and as a result Sphere looks and feels like a film that wasn't quite ready for the cameras. Though it's by no means a waste of time, it's undeniably disappointing. The special edition DVD includes audio commentary by Hoffman and Jackson and a behind-the-scenes featurette, Shaping the Sphere: The Art of the Special Effects Supervisor, exploring the alien ship's design and creation by special effects technicians. --Jeff Shannon

I couldn't agree more with this quote "leads to one of the most anticlimactic endings of any science fiction film ever made". I was interested for the first half of the film and then I was just looking forward to the ending, which was pretty lame.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120184

 

[Russ Smith]

You must be registered for see images attach

I couldn't agree more with this quote "leads to one of the most anticlimactic endings of any science fiction film ever made". I was interested for the first half of the film and then I was just looking forward to the ending, which was pretty lame.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120184

The book is better but even in that the ending is not that good. Crichton had that issue in a few of his books. I've always liked Crichton but he has this real annoying habit of having one character in each book who is like the all knowing. In Jurassic Park it's the Chaos Theory guy, the book is great but you get so tired of this one guy explaining and predicting everything because it's so obvious he's not really explaining it to the other characters, he's explaining it to the reader.

With Sphere that system didn't work because the explanation just doesn't make sense.

 

[crisper57]

One of my all time favorite books (problems notwithstanding). Went through a huge Crichton phase in high school and I must have read this book 4 or 5 times. The premise is amazing.

That being said, I felt cheated by the movie. Not a good translation onto film.

 

[Russ Smith]

One of my all time favorite books (problems notwithstanding). Went through a huge Crichton phase in high school and I must have read this book 4 or 5 times. The premise is amazing.

That being said, I felt cheated by the movie. Not a good translation onto film.

I think that's why it was a letdown for me both the ending of the book and the whole movie. As you said the premise is amazing, I won't spoil for those who don't know but the idea was great, he just didn't pull off how to use that premise to make a great book.

But then I had the same issue with 2010 and Arthur C Clarke and that's why I never read 2061 and 3001 and why they were never made into movies(I assume). He kept saying somethign wonderful is coming, but it didn't pay off.

Sphere was like that for me.

 

[Griffin]

One of my all time favorite books (problems notwithstanding). Went through a huge Crichton phase in high school and I must have read this book 4 or 5 times. The premise is amazing.

That being said, I felt cheated by the movie. Not a good translation onto film.

I think I was still in junior high when I read it. My first Crichton book, and while it normally would take me weeks to finish a book, I remember finishing that one in one sleepless night. I was completely hooked on the premise. Read all his books eventually. But yeah, when the movie came out some years later it was completely underwhelming. Congo, while a bit better, suffered from similar problems.

But then I had the same issue with 2010 and Arthur C Clarke and that's why I never read 2061 and 3001 and why they were never made into movies(I assume). He kept saying somethign wonderful is coming, but it didn't pay off.

Sphere was like that for me.

I did read all four books in the series, but they got progressively worse. There is no way you could make movies out of the last two. They would be laughably bad.

 

[NJCardFan]

One of my all time favorite books (problems notwithstanding). Went through a huge Crichton phase in high school and I must have read this book 4 or 5 times. The premise is amazing.

That being said, I felt cheated by the movie. Not a good translation onto film.

Agreed. I loved the book and funnily enough, I pictured Samuel L Jackson as Dr. Adams while reading the book. I did not have Dustin Hoffman as Norman or Sharon Stone as Beth. But I, too, felt cheated by the movie because the book was such a page turner. I read it in 2 days. Same with Timeline. Great book but crappy movie.

 

[Covert Rain]

Read the book after the movie. I thought the movie was enjoyable. After I read the book, I didn't look at the movie the same anymore. I almost feel cheated of the movie experience by reading the book. LOL.

 

[Russ Smith]

Agreed. I loved the book and funnily enough, I pictured Samuel L Jackson as Dr. Adams while reading the book. I did not have Dustin Hoffman as Norman or Sharon Stone as Beth. But I, too, felt cheated by the movie because the book was such a page turner. I read it in 2 days. Same with Timeline. Great book but crappy movie.

Yep Timeline was a very underrated book.

I watched part of the movie a couple of weeks ago, not good.

Crichton had a monster with Jurassic Park but I still think for the time it was written Andromeda Strain was probably just as good a book. The original movie was actually good(again given when made). They did a tv movie version a few years ago that didn't thrill me.

 

[AzStevenCal]

Yep Timeline was a very underrated book.

I watched part of the movie a couple of weeks ago, not good.

Crichton had a monster with Jurassic Park but I still think for the time it was written Andromeda Strain was probably just as good a book. The original movie was actually good(again given when made). They did a tv movie version a few years ago that didn't thrill me.

If you're talking about the mini-series I thought they did a pretty good job with it. Maybe it's because I don't expect much from mini-series or made for TV movies but considering everything I found it fairly entertaining. It's been so long since I read the book that I don't know how true it is to the source material but I found it much more watchable than the original movie. The TV version interested me enough that I decided to watch the movie again for the first time since it's initial theater run. It wasted no time in putting my wife and I to sleep.

I like pretty much everything Crichton writes but I've never thought his books fared well as movies. IMO, Timeline was his weakest adaptation and Jurassic Park easily his best but we also enjoy Congo quite a bit. Mostly because we're Laura Linney fans, it's certainly not on the strength of the movie. As for Sphere in movie form, I think it starts off strongly but fizzles out during the last 3rd or so. The best thing about it is that if you're looking for an easy movie to re-watch it works very well as long as you give it a few years. It's such a forgettable movie most of seems new every time we watch it.

Steve

 

[Gaddabout]

Sphere follows along the awesome drama of Crichton's team-building philosophy, and then fades into a bunch of "WTF?." The book is the one I recommend to anyone new to Crichton. The movie -- with Congo -- I tell everyone new to Crichton to avoid. They're both awful adaptations. Congo especially, but Sphere was so irritating.

I thought Timeline, A Case of Need (what ER was based on) and Airframe were Crichton's best work. Timeline, the first few chapters, absolutely blew my mind with the scientific explanation of quantum physics. I literally thought my head would explode.

 

[NJCardFan]

Sphere follows along the awesome drama of Crichton's team-building philosophy, and then fades into a bunch of "WTF?." The book is the one I recommend to anyone new to Crichton. The movie -- with Congo -- I tell everyone new to Crichton to avoid. They're both awful adaptations. Congo especially, but Sphere was so irritating.

I thought Timeline, A Case of Need (what ER was based on) and Airframe were Crichton's best work. Timeline, the first few chapters, absolutely blew my mind with the scientific explanation of quantum physics. I literally thought my head would explode.

State of Fear was also good. Next, not so much. The 2 books released after his death, Pirate Lattitudes and Micro, looked to be decent but the stories tended to drift. My guess this is where the co-author took over. I also enjoyed his non-fiction works like Jasper Johns and 5 Patients. As for movie adaptations, Rising Sun, Disclosure, Terminal Man, and Eaters of the Dead(movie named 13th Warrior) were very good.